Brown v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brown v. Brown

362 S.W.3d 508, 2012 WL 1032964, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 406

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2012

DocketED 96426

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 362 S.W.3d 508 (Brown v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Brown, 362 S.W.3d 508, 2012 WL 1032964, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony T. Brown appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting his Family Access Motion and motions for contempt and to modify child support, but denying his motion to modify child custody. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare *509 the law, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and is not an abuse of discretion, Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony T. Brown appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting his Family Access Motion and motions for contempt and to modify child support, but denying his motion to modify child custody. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and does not erroneously declare *509 the law, Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), and is not an abuse of discretion, Andrews v. Andrews, 344 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 S.W.3d 508, 2012 WL 1032964, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack